Woods v. CBRE Group CA1/5

Filed 10/19/21 Woods v. CBRE Group CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MELISSA WOODS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A160477 v. CBRE GROUP, INC., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-14-537527) Defendant and Respondent.

Melissa Woods (Plaintiff) appeals from the trial court’s ruling in favor of defendant CBRE Group, Inc. (CBRE Group) on her claim pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2014, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against CBRE Group, claiming CBRE Group was her former employer, alleging various Labor Code violations, and seeking PAGA penalties. The trial court dismissed the class claims, compelled arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual Labor Code claims, and stayed the PAGA claim pending arbitration. Over a year and a half later, the trial court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed after Plaintiff failed to file a case management statement regarding the status of the arbitration. As it

1

turns out, the arbitration had not yet commenced; CBRE Group submitted evidence that it had unsuccessfully attempted to contact Plaintiff to discuss selection of an arbitrator. Nearly two years after the individual claims were ordered to arbitration, the trial court appointed an arbitrator. In March 2017, the arbitrator issued an order to show cause why the arbitration should not be dismissed for want of prosecution after neither Plaintiff nor her counsel appeared at an arbitration management conference. Ultimately, the arbitrator awarded Plaintiff a total of $504 plus interest. The arbitrator also awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs “upon proper application,” but Plaintiff never so applied. Six months after the arbitration award issued, the trial court again issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to file a case management statement regarding the arbitration status. Two months later, the court issued another such order for the same reason, stating it would dismiss the case if Plaintiff did not appear at the next hearing. In the spring of 2019, a year and a half after the arbitration award issued, litigation of the PAGA claim resumed. At trial, Plaintiff submitted the arbitration award and her complaint as exhibits, but presented no witnesses or other evidence. The trial court ruled in favor of CBRE Group and issued judgment. DISCUSSION The trial court’s order and judgment do not indicate the basis for its ruling or set forth any findings of fact or law, and Plaintiff did not request a statement of decision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 632.) The hearing at which the court issued its ruling was not reported, and Plaintiff did not elect to use a settled statement on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137(b)(1).) “[I]t is a